User talk:Cronquist
Welcome Hi, welcome to Quest for Glory Omnipedia! Thanks for your edit to the Quest for Glory 4 ½: So You Thought You Were a Hero? page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Baggins (Talk) 17:14, June 22, 2010 QFG4.5 controversy Ah yes I know how controversial the game is. Please try to keep the discussion to the talk page, and avoid war edits. Try to maintain neutrality. This is a generic warning, given to both parties involved :). No hard feelings intended.Baggins 17:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC) : Okay, thanks! I wasn't sure how to handle it. I thought about messaging your first. I guess I shold have. Sorry! : To quote your last edit on the page. "Re-added the original link. I think it's important that this site remain impartial, this isn't QfMG's wiki, after all. = ) Cool that there's now a policy there" I understand that you want to keep the site impartial, but when the information is involving QFMG, the information shouldn't be how an outsider wants it to look - especially when the information was incorrect. (It might not be a QFMG wiki, but on a free-to-edit wiki, and the imformation's about QFMG, there's going to be people from there wanting to clear up misinformation :) ) ''Next time, send a message and we can discuss the stuff before you remove an edit you think is 'speculation'. (My user page says I'm an admin over at the forums :) ) Orion Rezil 19:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Ya, its only fair if information about other QFG fan sites are brought up that they remain 100% accurate.Baggins 19:19, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I want to be polite but you're wrong (directed at Orion Rezil, not Baggins). It is better that information regarding QfMG, or any other site, should be how it looks to an outsider than an insider. And the information wasn't incorrect. QfMG does remove or edit posts about QfG 4.5, and users are threatened with being banned if they bring it up. And there was no rule about posting messages about 4.5. So everything that I input into the article was correct. What you put was speculation. You stated that "most members" view the game a certain way, but I don't think there was ever a poll on the matter, was there? At most, all you can say is how the admin of the site feels about the game. Oh, and since you were the one to edit everything that I put into the article, which was all correct, I think you should have contacted me. In the future, please do! Thanks =) Cronquist 19:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Baggins, if something is sourced, it's not really "original research" is it (like my trivia edit to the 4.5 article was)? I mean, isn't your comment on the 4.5 article, about how divisive 4.5 is, "original research" since it isn't sourced? And isn't it deceptive on Orion Rezil's part to make an edit to the wiki and use a post he makes on another site as the supportive reference? :Also, I wasn't saying that an "outsider's interpretation" should be taken as fact. And there wasn't any interpretation in what I posted. I posted to the 4.5 article that QfMG deletes and edits posts about the game, and that they threaten to ban people who post about it. I didn't say anything else about the situation with that forum member that Orion Rezil was talking about, because I don't know anything about it. But I do think that it's trivia-worthy that one of the few active Quest for Glory sites does not allow ANY discussion about a Quest for Glory-related game.Cronquist 15:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC) :The comment about the game being devisive is sourced by both the links to Infamous ADventures and the link to QFMG website. Follow the links and read the comments. the Infamous Adventures one is primarily fans, wanting to somehow fix the game and make it run better on modern computers. The one QFMG is primarily discussion how bad the game is. They are examples showing the two spectrums to the same subject. Granted I personally don't really care about the game. I'm more interested in the official series, but leave this wiki open to show the fan community's offerings as well.Baggins 21:02, June 26, 2010 (UTC) :How is me being an administrator on the forums, making a post about it now being actual policy being deceptive? The fact that it's now an actual policy is because of how deceptive the original 'trivia' was. That's the only real issue I have with it is that - and perhaps it's the wording - but it was making it sound like QFMG banned people specifically because of talking about the game, which isn't true. As I posted on Baggins talk page, perhaps we should just delete this 'trivia' and be done with it. It's become quite apparent that neither of us are budging from our stances on this. *shrugs* Orion Rezil 21:48, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I said I wasn't going to argue with you any further, Orion Rezil.Cronquist 15:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC) ::I wasn't arguing. To be honest, I'm kind of confused as to how this became such a discussion. I know I come across way to hot-headed at times too, and I apologise for it. I'm posting this next part to see if you're okay with adding it to the QFG 4.5 page. ::''The Quest for Glory fansite, Quest for More Glory,limits the discussion on the game to two specific threads, and takes a firm stance against the game. They also disallow all links to the game, and any discussion on gameplay (hints and/or walkthroughs). Previously, it was an unmentioned rule - where threads were either deleted in their entirety (with a private message explaining why to the posts author), or edited if the author chose to ignore the warning - which included warnings of being banned if they continued. Recently an actual policy was enacted, now making this an official rule of the forums. ::Again, sorry for being so hotheaded. It's quite easy to realize after the fact, but not during. Orion Rezil 04:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC) No this is not Cronquist's wiki either. I never said it was.... Orion you'll notice your suggestion is very similar to the one I put on the Qfg 4.5 talk page (pointing out that discussion is limited to only to a certain talk page/s, and not its not a completely blanket ban) :The Quest for Glory fansite, Quest for More Glory, does not permit any discussion on the topic of this game (except within a single thread), only recently having enacted an actual policy regarding the game's discussion. Previous to the enactment of this rule, posts by forum members were deleted or entirely edited, and members were given warnings to not to mention the game (and threatened with bans for repeat offenses). Whatever version used just needs related links showing where this is the case (whatever edits are needed to make it succicnt/accuracy), and it should be good.Baggins 08:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC) : Ah, I somehow missed that whole discussion on the talk page - I was just going on what was under the trivia before. Either version works. I'll leave it up to you or Cronquist to do the edit. Orion Rezil 08:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)